castlevaniafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Simon Belmont
1667? There's no way Simon could have been born in 1667 if he was to be 22 years old by the events of the first Castlevania game. If that game takes place sometime in 1691, and he was supposed to be 22 (or 23 by Judgment), he would have to have been born between the years 1668-1669, with 1668 being the earliest possible year only if he was 22 going on 23 in the year 1691. --Brahman 18:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) *has iga ever given us a defined age for him? trevor gets one (19 in CV3, 22 in CoD), so do juste and richter and julius, but chris and simon are enigmae afaik. and regardless of whether people adore or despise judgment, it deliberately straddles the AU and core-timeline fence, and it pulls characters from all over the place in their lives because aeon is a big au fic fanboy or something. it is not chockablock with gospel truths in mainline canon (it tanked, only ~4000 units sold in japan; i doubt iga will make it mainline) and is not supposed to be srsbzns. if it were trevor would not be acting like captain N simon. XD (they could have cashed in on nostalgia by making simon the egotist, man. and frankly given the way he DRESSES he looks like more the type. trev just looks like he got lost in lulu's closet and its contents attacked him.) tl;dr blah blah blah - do we ever get a concrete age for the guy? anyone? bueller? i've been hunting and i cannot find one. --castlevaniaburd, having CACHE PROBLEMS and unable to sign in :E the source I'm using for Simon's age is the Order of Ecclesia strategy guide's promo for Judgment. now, I know that this isn't the greatest source, but i am guessing that they didn't pull this number out of a hat. i can only assume that this information came from somewhere. it's the only place i know of that lists his age (other than International Track & Field...) i do have the Japanese Judgment strategy guide though, i'll have to check it to see if it has any numbers on it that might be an age. also, Judgment takes place one year after the original Castlevania game, not immediately after it. --Reinhart77 23:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :Sorry for the late reply, I just don't check here very often. Anyway, I completely get what you're saying, and if it's what the Strategy Guide/sourcebook says, then I suppose that's what it says. Maybe someone over at Konami dropped the ball when it comes to the math, then, as if he was born in 1667 there's no way he would have been 22 by 1691 (youngest he could have been was 23 going on 24), but maybe I'm just a stickler for minor details. --Brahman 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) ack, that would be my bad math, i think. anyways, i adjusted it to a more plausible year. dang it, I wasn't able to find anything in the Judgment strategy guide that looked like ages or a timeline. oh well.--Reinhart77 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Gallery I do not think to exhibit the collage in the gallery.--Kiyuhito 17:29, November 11, 2010 (UTC) I removed this from the gallery.--Kiyuhito 19:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC) Castlevania: Stairs? (Newgrounds) Simon should have used the stairs on this level!-- 07:01, April 7, 2012 (UTC) Splitting page This may be a very controversial decesion, but I think we should split up this page into several different pages just like we recently did with Dracula. There is evidence (from IGA himself) that the original Castlevania is the one that happens in his timeline and Super Castlevania IV, Akumajo Dracula X68000 etc., are alternate continuity. I propose that we make seperate pages for each incarnation of Simon. Also, something that may seem trivial but that I would like to adress: several sources that deal with IGA's timeline use Simon's Chronicles artwork as his canon appearance. Because this artwork was created for the remake, I personally don't consider it to be representative for the original game. Therefore, although the original NES game is the one that should be treated as legimate, I think we should use his look from Chronicles as his canon appearance. --Nagumo baby (talk) 16:03, November 6, 2012 (UTC) :CV1, VK, SCV4 and X68K are almost the same, I am not interested in division of the page. Probably, it is good to have those pages, since HC and CV2 are different things. I am opposed to the opinion on the basis of chronicle Simon artwork. I respect an origin. The Greatest Five of PoR is original Simon. The pixel art of Simon of HD is original Simon. Probably, HD artwork is negligent recycling. Probably, Simon was a near appearance origin, when a new art was drawn.--Kiyuhito (talk) 01:22, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :But, When "game play" is taken into consideration, there may be page division. Technique and inventory are different by the game.--Kiyuhito (talk) 02:00, November 7, 2012 (UTC) We could split the pages for both story and gameplay reasons. I think it's important to make the distinction, because most fans believe VK, SCIV, etc. are canon as "remakes", which is not true. It's true these pages would roughly all be the same. Another possibility is to remove all the content that deals with VK, SC4, X68K. Though I don't prefer that solution. Regarding artwork, I make a distinction between artwork and sprites. For example, in Symphony of the Night, Richter's sprite is the one from Rondo but his artwork is completely different. I think IGA envisions Simon to look like his Chronicles artwork despite using his sprite from CV1. I think it's imporant to follow IGA's intent. --Nagumo baby (talk) 13:50, November 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd say just split the gameplay info into subpage like character/HOS. CV1 SCV4 X68k/Chronicle basically share the same story, there is no need to separate them. --'TX55TALK'' 15:48, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :On a Wiki point of view, I don't know if it is really revelant to have 4 or 5 Simon Belmont pages, considering his story and role in all these games are almost the same. :Maybe adding new sections and working on a division in the article may be a good thing to do (having '''In XYZ game ; In ABC game) and putting all the information in the right section. :Maybe doing pages like Simon Belmont/Judgment or Simon Belmont/Harmony of Despair may do it on another hand (but these games are not canon, so maybe not). :As for the artwork, I'd chose one from Chronicles (File:LeonRed.jpg - it is certainely the most fitting). -Chernabogue (talk) 14:00, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :::One advantage of having seperate Simon pages (at least for having one for CV1 and X68K) is that there is no conflict about which pictures to use. The profile picture constantly changes between blonde Simon from X68K and Simon's canonical Chronicles artwork. :::I was also thinking to keep all these seperate Simon pages brief so that they are not a chore to read while still being as informative as possible. I made an example in my talk page archive (http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Nagumo_baby/Archive_3). :::What also may be important is to apply clear structure to the wiki. For example, we have seperate pages for normal Simon and LoS Simon because they are from two seperate continuities. Putting all these different incarnations of Simon into one page is confusing and there is no real reason for it. --Nagumo baby (talk) 14:35, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :Applying a clear structure is a good idea. I like your idea: Minimum information, one little picture, small articles, a bit of trivia/more information; so the readers won't get lost. A Character Infobox wouldn't be needed. The Dab1 template (disambiguation) shold be used at the beginning of such articles however. -Chernabogue (talk) 14:39, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :::I would like to begin with splitting the pages. Please let me know if anyone wants to discuss this matter further before I begin. --Nagumo baby (talk) 20:43, November 21, 2012 (UTC) ::::I'm okay. Go for it. If you need help or need one/more templates, don't gesitate to ask me. ;) -Chernabogue (talk) 20:47, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :::::Sorry for missing the discussion. If they are basically the same character in minor continuities, why don't we use subpages? --'TX55'TALK 01:30, November 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I agree with TX55.--Kiyuhito (talk) 07:56, November 23, 2012 (UTC) :::::::I'm ok with that, but what is the advantage over just seperating them completely? If we put a disambiguation link and a "see also" section that directs to the other Simon pages in the article the result would be exactly the same. We didn't make a sub-page for LoS Simon either so what would make this situation different? --Nagumo baby (talk) 15:02, November 23, 2012 (UTC)